By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our
Cookie Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your Cookie Settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.

A model from Toronto, identified as Jane Doe, filed a suit against Weinstein, Miramax and Disney in November, alleging that she had twice been sexually assaulted by Weinstein while working on a film in 2000, reports variety.com.

Disney has sought to extricate itself from the suit, claiming that though Disney owned Miramax at the time, Weinstein enjoyed autonomy and Disney was not responsible for overseeing his conduct.

In order to advance its motion, Disney has sought to file three employment agreements under seal. Disney alleges that it cannot properly make its arguments without referring to the agreements, and that it cannot publicly disclose the agreements due to a confidentiality provision.

"Disney has not met the high threshold set by our Supreme Court of Canada to curb the open court principle," Sugunasiri wrote.

"The public shall have access to any materials the parties choose to file with respect to the stay motion."

Though the documents remain under seal for now, the court's ruling notes that Disney is identified as a "co-obligor" along with Miramax in the Weinstein contracts, arguably indicating an employment relationship between Disney and Weinstein.

Disney has sought to exclude the press and public from a court hearing on the matter, according to a motion filed by Doe's attorneys.

--IANS

sug/nv/bg

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)